DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of invention and/or species, and corresponding claims (1, 7, 9-20) is acknowledged. The election has been made without traverse. Non-elected claims are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant's arguments are not persuasive because they amount to a general allegation and fails distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors upon which the applicant relies for his or her conclusion that the requirement is in error. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 9-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watkins et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0072720).
In reference to claim 1, Watkins discloses a method of manufacturing a mechanically stabilized material comprising a nanostructure, the method comprising: providing a curable material disposed on a substrate, the curable material comprising inorganic nanoparticles; and exposing the curable material and the substrate to pulsed electromagnetic radiation to form the mechanically stabilized material (Figure 1C [0065]-[0066] and [0070]).
In reference to claim 7, 11, see Watkins at P0099.
Regarding Claim 9: Watkins et al. disclose the invention as described above in the rejection of Claim 1. Watkins et al. further disclose wherein the curable material comprises an ink, a resin mixture, or a combination thereof (while not specifically described as an ink, it is the Examiner’s position that the materials described in Watkins et al. could be considered an ink ([0063])).
Regarding Claim 10: Watkins et al. disclose the invention as described above in the rejection of Claim 1. Watkins et al. further disclose wherein the curable material further comprises at least one additive chosen from a polymer, a resin mixture, a binder, a sol-gel precursor, or combinations thereof ([0063]).
Regarding Claim 12 : Watkins et al. disclose the invention as described above in the rejection of Claim 1. Watkins et al. further disclose wherein the exposing of the curable material to the pulsed radiation results in removal of organic material from the curable material (([0068]) but it is also the Examiner’s position that the sintering as described would evaporate organic solvent from the material).
Regarding Claims 13: Watkins et al. disclose the invention as described above in the rejection of Claim 1. Watkins et al. further disclose stamping the curable material on the substrate with a mold, wherein the mold is substantially transparent to electromagnetic radiation and comprises a patterned nanostructure (Figure 1C [0065]-[0066] and [0070]). Watkins et al. disclose that metastructures in different geometries can be formed [0099].
Regarding Claim 16: Watkins et al. disclose the invention as described above in the rejection of Claim 1. Watkins et al. further disclose wherein the substrate increases in temperature by less than 5 °C during the exposing (Watkins et al. disclose the pulse energy source allows the composition to be selectively heated without substantial heating occurring to the bulk of the composition ([0069]).
Regarding Claim 17: Watkins et al. disclose the invention as described above in the rejection of Claim 1. Watkins et al. further disclose further comprising performing at least one cycle of atomic layer deposition to backfill the mechanically stabilized material ([0088]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watkins et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0072720).
Regarding Claim 14-15: Watkins et al. disclose the invention as described above in the rejection of Claim 1. Watkins et al. further disclose wherein the pulsed electromagnetic radiation is from a pulsed Xenon emission source having wavelengths ranging from ultraviolet to near-infrared and further states that the pulsed source prevents substantial heating to the bulk of the composition ([0069]-[0070]). Watkins et al. fail to specifically disclose wherein the exposing comprises a pulse sequence comprising pulsing the electromagnetic radiation for about 5 ms to about 60 ms and turning off the pulsed electromagnetic radiation for about 70 ms to about 150ms and power density being 20-500 watts/cm/cm. However, given the description of Watkins et al. that the bulk material was not heated substantially, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found the timing of the pulses and power density to be a matter of routine optimization keeping in mind sintering the composition but not heating the bulk.
Conclusion
Any prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See Haatainen, T., 2011. Stamp fabrication by step and stamp nanoimprinting. Aalto University for relevant background information.
In reference to claim 1, Komaki discloses “FIGS. 3A to 3C show, in section, examples of the mold M, the resin R, and the substrate W used in the imprint processing according to the first embodiment. FIGS. 3A to 3C show the imprint processing for transferring a pattern Ma (relief structure) formed on the mold M to the resin R on the substrate W.”
PNG
media_image1.png
370
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xiao Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights